Why I voted Yes on the marriage amendment in MN

posted at 8:41 am on November 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The ballot in my state has two somewhat controversial referendums, both of which probably have more drama than any of the candidate races — including, until just recently, the presidential election. One measure should pass rather easily, as the voter-ID requirement has maintained its popularity throughout most of this cycle. The other would move the current statutory definition of marriage into the state constitution, and its future looks more murky. Before I left Minnesota to spend the election in California, I cast my ballot in support of both measures, and I’ll explain why — and urge my fellow Minnesotans to join me.

First, contrary to what the measure’s opponents have written, it doesn’t change the definition of marriage in the state. Marriage in Minnesota is restricted by statute to one man and one woman. The measure would amend the state constitution to define it more foundationally. That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary, which in other states changed the definition of marriage without voters having any say in this government policy. If at some point in the future Minnesota voters want to change the definition of marriage to something else, they can amend the state constitution to do so — and only need a simple majority of all ballots cast, as is the case today. Citizens who believe that representative government and direct democracy are better forms of self-government than judicial fiat should support this process.

Second, I believe that government has little legitimate interest in formal recognition of sexual relationships (other than to bar consanguinous relationships or exploitative relationships with minors), and that the formal recognition process that marriage represents should only take place where government has a pressing interest. I’ve written before that I think government would do best to stay out of marriage altogether, and leave it to the churches. That would be the best possible solution in a perfect libertarian world.

However, that’s not the world in which we live. The only legitimate state interest in otherwise consensual sexual relationships are those whose form could produce offspring. Government offers recognition of marriage (and certain incentives) in order to fix paternity and hold parents responsible for upkeep and behavior of children produced from those relationships. We have seen the damage done to society from children produced outside of marriage, and the costs to our communities through the increased need for government services. That doesn’t mean that every marriage has to produce children to be legitimate, but the form of the heterosexual relationship is the only one in which government has any legitimate interest in certifying ahead of the production of offspring. Otherwise, government has no legitimate role in licensing sexual relationships, and no need to do so.

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar. Right now, churches act as agents of the state in conducting weddings. For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate. In that case, the federal government will force religious organizations (schools, charities, health-care providers) to violate their doctrines by facilitating access to contraception and sterilization, and that’s without the added lever of acting in stead of the state, as churches do when officiating at weddings. Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

And that last point relates to the second, too. If we are to hand that kind of lever to the state, it shouldn’t be the state itself — through its judiciary — that activates that lever. That decision has to come from an informed electorate that truly wants its government to begin licensing sexual relationships in which they have no real interest, and giving their government an opening to push churches out of the sacrament of marriage.

For those reasons, I urge my fellow Minnesotans to vote yes on the marriage amendment, as I did last week.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Oh and BTW, I know how the gay community likes to change history but I am sure that Ellen Corby’s husband would have been surprised to know that she was a lesbian. – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Sorry to tell you but she was involved with women. The ten year marriage was a marriage just like Rock Hudson’s marriage was a marriage.

This is a cautionary tale. I have had more than my share of attention from gays during my youth, and even as a kid I had, without any urging from any adult, come to detest both their lifestyle and morals.

Gays taught me what sexual preditors were. I shivver when I think of it.

I would prefer not to associate with them. Interestingly, I’m a Catholic and none of the priests I’ve dealt with in my life behaved as preditors sexually or otherwise. I guess I must have been lucky? However, those gay priests that have trashed our Church certainly have behaved as I remember the guys in the park doing — until we kids didn’t dare go to the park any more.

But gays don’t understand any putative right of freedom of association — they demand that landlords rent to them, that they be allowed to rent churches for their weddings, that their advances be tolerated, etc.

I’d certainly be willing to leave them alone if they’d leave me alone. So they won’t, so I won’t.

Apples and oranges. Laws regarding ownership of other people and domination of one sex or the protection of children or property rights are completely separate from a man and a woman and both the civil protection of marriage AND the religious sanctity for a family. There is no way social convention or custom or even science can combine the genes of two men and two women.

I have done that. I am 61 years old and was a history major in college. Human societies from the beginning of time have demonized gays, just like they have demonized other minorities within their ranks. Just because it has always been done, does not make right. I am sure that even if gay marriage is legalized throughout the United States there are going to be a lot of unhappy people, such as yourself. – SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Actually, this is not true. The ancient Greeks glorified gay relationships. The Romans practiced it openly. Currently, the Islamic world uses gay six as a weapon and the Koran glorifies the beauty of pre-pubecent boys. William the Conquerer was gay. William the Lionhearted was gay. Nonetheless, marriage between a man and a woman remained sacrosanct. – Portia46 on November 6, 2012 at 2:54 PM

If you will notice I did not say “all” societies. King James I of Great Britain was gay. Yep, remember the King James Bible was named after him.

If you thought I misinterpreted your comments, the rationale thing to do is to explain them further or defend them. Instead you attacked my reposte through a personal attack that was crude and nasty and meant to offend and/or intimidate.

Intimidate? All I did was use a euphemism for you making something up out of whole clothe. In fact, I deliberately refrained from using the words most people use when saying that specifically to be more polite.

You call my interpretation a “leap”, but you advocate that churches not perform marriages to protect themselves?

Your leap was in assuming I wanted to government to force churches out.

Look, because of the mandate, Catholics will stop running hospitals rather than compromise their beliefs. Ed is the one who said marriage is a state institution, and following that logic, I would think churches may be faced with the same no win situation with only one logical out.

That’s it. I don’t want the government to force this on them, nor would I force it on any church, nor do I think churches have no right to have marriage ceremonies, nor would I even advocate that they stop performing marriages as a ritual without government support.

I asked if they should also give up the Eucharist for the same purpose.

Ok, so how is that the same purpose? How does that fit at all?

You also stated that churches give power to the government by not paying taxes.

I said I assume that. Isn’t that what some say of people on welfare? My point is that I see it as an argument that makes sense. It’s one that many conservatives often apply to companies with subsidies. And it’s one of the reasons I wish churches weren’t tax exempt, because I do believe this will be held over their heads at some point.

Especially by someone like Obama.

I tried to explain how that would most assuredly be used as a weapon to close churches. Henry took over the abbies because he was broke. You think Obama will keep his hands off the cathedrals and the art?

Sorry to tell you but she was involved with women. The ten year marriage was a marriage just like Rock Hudson’s marriage was a marriage.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Possibly since the whole show was based on a Truman Capote vision, but was this her confession or was she “outted” after death? I have seen too many of these cases where gayness has been thrust on many historical people and it hasn’t been true i.e., Abe Lincoln.. Hell, a gay “historical” website even had Joan of Arc as a suspect gay because she she remained a virgin. A class case of projection.

I just want to know one thing. Do both partners get SS survivorship benefits in the event one dies? If the answer is yes, this is blatant favoritism for homosexuals. But then that’s what it’s been about from jump street. Special class, a better class. Remember regular hetero Joe’s get no such benefit. Their spouse dies, they man up.

Social Security has always been a bane to families. I think it was part of the plan. Social Security undermines one aspect of creating a family. Security in old age. People had large families in the past, because doing so ensured that they would have someone to fall back on if they got injured or just got too old to provide for oneself. Social Security got rid of that incentive and the birth rate has been declining. Easy divorce needed. Birth control became a staple diet. Abortion was needed so people did not have to be burdened with a baby. Now, since marriage has been under such heavy attack on this, they think it is time to let gays get special unearned privilege. I say it was all planned from the start.

I’m seeing all sorts of slippery-slope arguments here, and I’m not buying them. And yes, I *do* have a dog in this fight.

I married my husband, legally, in a state which allows same-sex marriage. (It was by a Justice of the Peace, in a non-religious ceremony, FWIW). I live in a state which has constitutionally defined marriage as one man and one woman, and further bars recognition of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or anything which might be construed as an acknowledgement that some people aren’t heterosexual.

Obivously, I support allowing same-sex marriage to be legalized (and I want to see DOMA overturned too; DOMA is the primary reason that we are paying almost $6000/year more in health insurance than we would if our marriage were federally recognized, but that is another argument for another day). However, none of the other things I see being claimed as the gay lobby’s next steps are things that I (or my very left husband) support: I don’t support forcing churches to marry same-sex couples under any circumstances, I don’t support group marriage, and I don’t support anything which would make same-sex marriage superior to heterosexual marriage (which is another argument for overturning DOMA, because of the way our insane tax codes are written). I am opposed to Obamacare in part for the same reason that many others here oppose it: the mandates on religious institutions for contraceptive requirements in their insurance plans. If the “gay lobby” starts pushing some of those arguments, I’ll be in the trenches throwing punches with you, because the state doesn’t have the power to compel religious organizations to act in ways antithetical to their doctrines.

As Ed said, in an ideal world, there would be no government involvement in marriage; churches could marry people, and civil officials could conduct civil unions, and both would provide the same benefits and penalties. I used to be opposed to “gay marriage” until the social conservatives starting working to preclude civil union/domestic partnership provisions and began trying to tie all of the benefits to the word “marriage”, under their definition. That was when I decided that if I was to have the benefits, I wanted the word too. That was the unanticipated blowback from SoCon activism: taking a tacit supporter of their views and radicalizing him into an active opponent, because they wanted to make sure that gay people didn’t get anything that looked like acknowledgement of same-sex pairings.

I don’t hear anyone here condemning interracial marriage, but until Loving v. Virginia there were no legal “mixed marriages” in Virginia or sixteen other states, so there was a fundamental change in the definition of marriage after that case. To those who argue that marriage is about producing children–what about childless couples? Do people who fail to produce children in, say, 10 years, have to have their marriage annulled? Do post-menopausal women lose the right to marry (or remarry, if widowed or divorced)?

And before I get flamed for being a lefty troll, every single time I have voted for President, US Senate, or US House, (since 1986, the first time I was able to vote) I have voted for Republican or Libertarian candidates, never a Democrat. I didn’t change that behavior this time, but I didn’t vote for Romney because of his anti-equality statements during the primary. I voted for a guy who is not going to win, but it is a protest vote from a registered Republican.

I don’t hear anyone here condemning interracial marriage, but until Loving v. Virginia there were no legal “mixed marriages” in Virginia or sixteen other states, so there was a fundamental change in the definition of marriage after that case. To those who argue that marriage is about producing children–what about childless couples? Do people who fail to produce children in, say, 10 years, have to have their marriage annulled? Do post-menopausal women lose the right to marry (or remarry, if widowed or divorced)?

Doesn’t matter– If there is a “constitutional right to marry anyone you love, and state’s do not have a right to regulate it, then group marriage must be allowed.

I used to be opposed to “gay marriage” until the social conservatives starting working to preclude civil union/domestic partnership provisions and began trying to tie all of the benefits to the word “marriage”, under their definition.

Yep and I used to be for gay marriage until I saw the slippery slope in Massachusetts ie, Catholic Charities having to get out of the adoption business and parents being unable to opt out of their children learning about homosexuality by court order. I was then for civil unions until homosexuals demanded marriage so I guess we crossed paths.

I don’t hear anyone here condemning interracial marriage, but until Loving v. Virginia there were no legal “mixed marriages” in Virginia or sixteen other states, so there was a fundamental change in the definition of marriage after that case.

The difference is that whites were excluded from marrying minorities. There were already minorities marry minorities and they specifically excluded whites from intermarrying. No sexual orientation can marry same gender since marriage is not granted on sexual orientation only gender. EVVERYONE is excluded from marrying the same gender unlike Loving v. Virginia where whites where the ONLY ones excluded from marrying minorities hence why it was THE WHITE man who sued for equal protection not the black women.

I think most people have the marriage issue backwards. The state does not have an interest in marriage at all. While this is true it misses the point. Government did not come along and impose marriages laws on people. The culture wrote those laws. Long before any thing that would resemble modern government came along customs on marriage and inheritance existed. Then came government then people codified those customs. Simple. Marriage and inheritance laws are practical solutions to everyday problems. They will never go away it just won’t happen. Humans have sex, breed and die and will always have customs surrounding those events and will therefore ALWAYS have an interest in them and will ALWAYS codify them.

If gays want gay marriage they should have gotten married in not recognized by government ceremonies and created a practical need to allow gay marriage. This would have changed the culture slowly over time. Culture changed to allow gay couples visitation in hospitals, why? It was a practical need… This kamikaze use the judges and friendly legislatures bullsh@# has resulted in over half the union defining marriage as between a man and a woman. To overcome that culturally will take generations. I can’t wait until the issue flips completely one way or the other so we can stop talking about it.

Theworldisnotenough on November 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Very true, and perceptive. The reason, of course, why we have same sex marriage pushed through the government — courts, laws, by any means necessary — is because they want to force the issue against people who are not willing to go along. The one thing the government can do is provide force. Lawsuits are just another way to apply government force to people who are opposed.

All the live-and-let-live people miss this, but same sex marriage proponents are not live-and-let-live at all. They are demanding approval. If they get same sex marriage in force, they intend to use those laws to “win” their argument.

Shame on you, Ed. I sincerely hope that your conscience is bothering you, and I suspect it is. I like you, and I’ve been a loyal reader of yours for six years, but it really disappoints me that you would vote against the interests of your fellow citizens that aren’t hurting you or anyone else, and enshrine discrimination and ignorance in you constitution. I hope you’ll be among the first conservatives to shift course. Your public opposition to equality will be a source of embarrassment one day.

First, marriage has been “redefined” numerous times in the history of civilization. Women aren’t a husband’s property any more. And the virginity of a woman on her wedding day isn’t required anymore. No more dowry’s. Etc….

JetBoy on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Sorry JetBoy, but the lamest argument ever advanced in support of changing marriage to apply to people of the same sex — an absurdity in and of itself — is the claim that marriage has been “redefined” numerous times in the past.

Whether women were expected to be virgins on their wedding day was never a requirement of marriage. Remarriages have been a fact of life for centuries. Were widows supposed to become virgins before they could get married?

And whether women were considered “property” of their husbands had more to do with the status of women in various societies than their definition of marriage.

It’s a rationalization to hide the fact that you’re seeking to redefine marriage in a way that’s never been done before.

The only legitimate state interest in otherwise consensual sexual relationships are those whose form could produce offspring.

There is no legitimate state interest for any voluntary relationship, sexual or otherwise. None at all.

Dante on November 6, 2012 at 9:51 AM

So true. Government exists in a pure and abstract vacuum. It would hever have any interest in an institution affecting greater than 95% of all citizens.

No issues ever come up between husbands and wives that a government might have to resolve. Also, adultery never happens, husbands never fight with other men because of jealousy of their wives, children are always unaffected by the breakups of marriages.

No reason the government would ever need to recognize established relationships between citizens that produce new citizens in the form of children.

Marriage should be exclusive to the church. Government should not recognize marriage and should not use it to hand out rights and preferences to certain groups. Instead, government should only recognize civil unions, which should be open to all.

I would never have supported this proposition. Get government out of marriage and reject discrimination in our state constitutions.

Obivously, I support allowing same-sex marriage to be legalized (and I want to see DOMA overturned too; DOMA is the primary reason that we are paying almost $6000/year more in health insurance than we would if our marriage were federally recognized, but that is another argument for another day)

Horologium on November 6, 2012 at 4:50 PM

No, that is an argument for right now, because it cuts to the core of your problem.

DOMA does not say that gay couples must pay more in health insurance. Federal tax law does — specifically, the fact that the contribution that an employer makes for health insurance coverage for domestic partners/non-dependent beneficiaries of employees must be considered as income to the employee for tax purposes.

This could be eliminated in one fell swoop if the tax laws were simply changed to state that you may have a tax exemption for the employer contribution for health insurance coverage for one non-dependent beneficiary of your choice, subject to spousal approval if you have one. The method is similar to the changes in the 2006 Pension Protection Act, in which the spousal exemption allowing retirement plans to be rolled over without having to take a distribution and tax hit was changed to be one designated beneficiary of your choice, with the only caveat being that your spouse had to approve it if it was someone other than your spouse.

Now, do you think you would have conservative support for a change in the law that cut taxes and allowed people to add a beneficiary to their health insurance without paying an additional tax penalty?

Heck yeah.

Are you going to have conservative support to change the definition of marriage?

No, you are not.

So ask yourself. Are you interested in actually solving the problem, or are you interested only in getting marriage whatever the cost?

Marriage should be exclusive to the church. Government should not recognize marriage and should not use it to hand out rights and preferences to certain groups. Instead, government should only recognize civil unions, which should be open to all.

I would never have supported this proposition. Get government out of marriage and reject discrimination in our state constitutions.

GMO on November 6, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Legal marriage is pivotal in determining guardianship and responsibility for children — this is something the state needs to be involved in. However, “gay marriage” has nothing to do with that, being nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to use the force of the state to attack moral judgments.

Only one person ever claimed that, and he was widely considered to hold a grudge against King James. No one else ever corroborated it. So this is not a fact at all, just a single he-said-he-said dispute.

Which makes me wonder just how true are all the other “facts” you throw out about who was and was not homosexual.

That’s a bunch of fear mongering nonsense. Catholic churches won’t marry two non-Catholics, and will only marry a Catholic and a non-Catholic in certain circumstances. The fact that these marriages would be legal has not lead to the state compelling the Catholic church to perform them.

Mark Jaquith on November 6, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So it would be ok if the Church simply excommunicates all homosexuals? Since it/he/she would no longer be Catholic, then it would be ok to refuse to marry it/he/she.

See, we can all come to understandings!

Bulletchaser on November 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM

The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is the same as it has always been and is equal for both Gay and Straight catholics.

It is a sin to have sexual relations outside marriage.

It is an abuse of the purpose of sex and has a corrupting influence like other sins on the individuals involved and those that may be effected by it.

The Pope was clear…Homosexuality in and of itself is not sinful…Acting on the Homosexual inclination is, just as it is with fornication outside the institution of marriage.

The church urges compassion and faithful counseling for Homosexuals so that they have a healthy understanding of this position, just as an catholic is counseled on the sinful nature and consequences of fornication. Catholics are expected to be chaste as a virtue…whether they are gay or straight.

Oh and BTW, I know how the gay community likes to change history but I am sure that Ellen Corby’s husband would have been surprised to know that she was a lesbian. – melle1228 on November 6, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Sorry to tell you but she was involved with women. The ten year marriage was a marriage just like Rock Hudson’s marriage was a marriage.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

And both chose to adopt a dishonest and cynical abuse of the intention of marriage.

Only one person ever claimed that, and he was widely considered to hold a grudge against King James. No one else ever corroborated it. So this is not a fact at all, just a single he-said-he-said dispute.

Which makes me wonder just how true are all the other “facts” you throw out about who was and was not homosexual.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM

SC.Charlie adopts a very palestinian approach to History…

The Modern Homosexual Culture has adopted this approach because as a group they lack traditions that bind most cultural groups over time and so they are in a state of re-invention to achieve a specific objective and recognition of an adopted identity.

One mechanism is the distortion of definitions,facts and interpretation of history…

“Only one person ever claimed that, and he was widely considered to hold a grudge against King James. No one else ever corroborated it. So this is not a fact at all, just a single he-said-he-said dispute.

Which makes me wonder just how true are all the other “facts” you throw out about who was and was not homosexual. – There Goes The Neighborhood on November 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM”

You obviously did not read the link I provided. I guess you wish to be remain uninformed about King James I of Great Britain. I majored in History in college back in the early 1970s. You might, also, like to look up and find out the facts about Frederick the Great and King Edward II of England. Edward II of England was murdered in a horrible fashion by people who obviously did not like his sexual orientation in a very horrid fashion.

“Only one person ever claimed that, and he was widely considered to hold a grudge against King James. No one else ever corroborated it. So this is not a fact at all, just a single he-said-he-said dispute.

Which makes me wonder just how true are all the other “facts” you throw out about who was and was not homosexual. – There Goes The Neighborhood on November 6, 2012 at 7:01 PM”

You obviously did not read the link I provided. I guess you wish to be remain uninformed about King James I of Great Britain. I majored in History in college back in the early 1970s. You might, also, like to look up and find out the facts about Frederick the Great and King Edward II of England. Edward II of England was murdered in a horrible fashion by people who obviously did not like his sexual orientation in a very horrid fashion.

The Modern Homosexual Culture has adopted this approach because as a group they lack traditions that bind most cultural groups over time and so they are in a state of re-invention to achieve a specific objective and recognition of an adopted identity.

One mechanism is the distortion of definitions,facts and interpretation of history… – workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Sorry, but I am not distorting history. I am just stating the facts as I know them. I guess people such as yourself can’t handle the truth. Sometimes I wonder why the hell I waste my time posting on this board about this subject when there are people such as yourself.

The Modern Homosexual Culture has adopted this approach because as a group they lack traditions that bind most cultural groups over time and so they are in a state of re-invention to achieve a specific objective and recognition of an adopted identity.

One mechanism is the distortion of definitions,facts and interpretation of history… – workingclass artist on November 6, 2012 at 7:42 PM

It is time for you to get and education. Israel is the best nation in the Middle East when it comes to gay rights. Please read the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Israel ………. From the article, ” Common law marriage [in Israel] which grants most of the official marriage rights to the spouse has been achieved, but full official same-sex marriage has not yet been sanctioned. However, same-sex marriages performed elsewhere are recognized.” As I have said before, sometimes I wonder why the hell I waste my time posting on this board about this subject when there are people such as you posting on it.

Sadly, I wake up this morning to find that Obama has been reelected. He is going to lead the United States down the road to economic ruin, more unneeded federal bureaucracy, more unneeded regulations, more federal spending and a weaker military. It is going to be a rough four years having to put up with this inept, arrogant president in the White House.

As for gay issues, the States of Maine and Maryland have passed laws allowing gay marriage. The Minnesota initiative to define marriage as only between a man and women in their constitution, right now, is too close to call. We will all have to wait until the final vote is in. But it looks like it will not pass.

As for gay issues, the States of Maine and Maryland have passed laws allowing gay marriage. The Minnesota initiative to define marriage as only between a man and women in their constitution, right now, is too close to call. We will all have to wait until the final vote is in. But it looks like it will not pass.

SC.Charlie on November 7, 2012 at 6:23 AM

Congradulations. Seriously. I wish you well but then I never wished you harm and be assured that I have never done harm to any homosexual.

It’s silly I know, because I believe God is the only arbiter that counts as regards what was once called marriage, but as a resident of Maryland, even in the face of total economic disaster, the one thing that brought tears was the fact that all my husband and I have gone through in keeping our marriage together for what we thought were the right reasons has been trivialized and repudiated by the state and by our neighbors. Now we have to figure out what to call our relationship and how to check those boxes asking about our marital status on forms.

All the live-and-let-live people miss this, but same sex marriage proponents are not live-and-let-live at all. They are demanding approval. If they get same sex marriage in force, they intend to use those laws to “win” their argument.

There Goes The Neighborhood on November 6, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So pass laws safeguarding the rights of religious organizations and churches – planted firmly on the First Amendment – and enforce those laws already in effect against lewd behavior. But let the gay couples have their benefits.

By the way, I know plenty of gays & lesbians who just want the marriage equality and not any part of a hardcore agenda that some gay extremists are demanding.

It’s silly I know, because I believe God is the only arbiter that counts as regards what was once called marriage, but as a resident of Maryland, even in the face of total economic disaster, the one thing that brought tears was the fact that all my husband and I have gone through in keeping our marriage together for what we thought were the right reasons has been trivialized and repudiated by the state and by our neighbors. Now we have to figure out what to call our relationship and how to check those boxes asking about our marital status on forms.

Portia46 on November 7, 2012 at 11:47 AM

That’s funny… I never felt like my marriage was threatened or diminished whenever a state approved gay marriage. Kristi and I are still a married couple, whether we live in Texas or Maryland. We’re raising two happy, healthy kids, and our family is going strong.

Has Iowa imploded yet? No? I rest my case. (And I do have ancestral ties to Iowa, so what goes on there DOES matter to me.)

I don’t know why I am gay and I certainly did not choose. I did not even experiment. I chose celibacy, silence and reclusiveness until I finally had a mental breakdown and nearly committed suicide five years ago. Then I came out of the closet to my close friends and associates. It was the best thing I ever did for my mental health. Everyone of them accepted me for who I am.

SC.Charlie on November 6, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I chose the same path until I was 33. I pleaded with God each day to change me. It’s awful to live in loneliness and shame. Few people can understand it, so I want to congratulate you and wish you much happiness.

“So pass laws safeguarding the rights of religious organizations and churches – planted firmly on the First Amendment – and enforce those laws already in effect against lewd behavior. But let the gay couples have their benefits.

By the way, I know plenty of gays & lesbians who just want the marriage equality and not any part of a hardcore agenda that some gay extremists are demanding. – TMOverbeck on November 7, 2012 at 1:48 PM

As a gay conservative I will be more than happy will vote for such laws.

I chose the same path until I was 33. I pleaded with God each day to change me. It’s awful to live in loneliness and shame. Few people can understand it, so I want to congratulate you and wish you much happiness. – GMO on November 7, 2012 at 4:01 PM

That’s funny… I never felt like my marriage was threatened or diminished whenever a state approved gay marriage. Kristi and I are still a married couple, whether we live in Texas or Maryland. We’re raising two happy, healthy kids, and our family is going strong.

Has Iowa imploded yet? No? I rest my case. (And I do have ancestral ties to Iowa, so what goes on there DOES matter to me.)

TMOverbeck on November 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Good for you. There won’t be an immediate implosion and I’m sure there are many others like you, and like my abhorance about killing late-term babies, I’m sure I’m merely old fashioned but 40 years ago, I didn’t sign up for this redefined institution and am not sure I want to be part of it. We just need to learn what we call outselves under these new rules.

Good for you. There won’t be an immediate implosion and I’m sure there are many others like you, and like my abhorance about killing late-term babies, I’m sure I’m merely old fashioned but 40 years ago, I didn’t sign up for this redefined institution and am not sure I want to be part of it. We just need to learn what we call outselves under these new rules. – Portia46 on November 7, 2012 at 4:44 PM

I am against abortion as a means as birth control and most certainly against late term abortions. As for your question, “We just need to learn what we call ourselves under these new rules.” Nothing changes for you, you are still married …………………. just as you have always been.

Again, may I emphasize that I wish you well and have never ever used derrogatory names to refer to homosexuals and have roundly condemned those who do—and I’ve done that to their face. Pardon me, but you are aware I’m sure that a conservative gay is an anomolie. I do not want to be part of an institution which so reduces MY humanity to the name gays call me and all women: BREEDER.

Again, may I emphasize that I wish you well and have never ever used derrogatory names to refer to homosexuals and have roundly condemned those who do—and I’ve done that to their face. Pardon me, but you are aware I’m sure that a conservative gay is an anomolie. I do not want to be part of an institution which so reduces MY humanity to the name gays call me and all women: BREEDER. – Portia46 on November 8, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I do not understand your point at all. You don’t like being called a breeder by some stupid, gay radicals? Just look at what I have been called on this board. I do not use the term breeders. I do not use vulgar language to describe anyone. And, I treasure my nine nieces and nephews. I only wish I could have had children.

You think that there are only a few gay conservatives such as myself. You are mistaken. There are far more of us than you might believe.

As I have stated, I have gone through mental hell in my life. It took a full-fledged mental breakdown and near suicide for me even to come out of my self-imposed closet and start talking about my sexuality at the age of 56. As I have said, I remained celibate all throughout those 56 years and was a semi-recluse with very few friends. I had to deal with anxiety and depression. That mental breakdown and coming out and to just begin to talk about it was the best thing that ever happened in my life. Finally, I don’t want gay teenagers and young adults to have to go through what I have gone through. But, there will always be people who will be attacking people such as myself. I understand that is just the way it is always going be.

As Ed said, in an ideal world, there would be no government involvement in marriage; churches could marry people, and civil officials could conduct civil unions, and both would provide the same benefits and penalties

I am so sick of this argument! Because homosexuals want to “marry” heterosexuals can no longer say they are “married” if they choose to utilize a Justice of the Peace? Nope, they can create and raise children together but because they didn’t have a church ceremony they’re not married, but gays who cannot procreate but can find a church to marry them are?

Thorny issues I’d like to see discussed by those who want marriage to rest exclusively with churches: If heterosexuals don’t use a church to marry but choose a secular “civil union” do they still get to use the term “husband and wife” or does that only apply to those who actually married married in a church? How does one describe one’s marital status if they’re not married married?